-Dark Water (2005). It was so bad it was laughable. My sister and I kept saying "Eeeeeevil water" lol.

-Into the Woods (2014). I mean... what?! WHO WROTE THIS?!

-Suicide Squad (2016). You gotta be kidding me. I mean, I LOVE Will Smith, and Margot Robbie did an awesome job on the character, but everything else is shit. The plot, the characters, ALL the nonsense... The only thing good about it is the soundtrack.

I have watched some pretty dismal films, but I must say that Guardians of the Galaxy was rather awful. Incoherent story that didn't make any sense whatsoever, plot holes the size of Jupiter, centering everything around action sequences and CGI, and awful acting.

On the other hand, I've always liked the LOTR films. They are nowhere near as wonderful as the books, but they did make a great job if we take into account how complex and diverse Tolkien's oeuvre is. On the other hand, overextending The Hobbit into three films (two of which are impossibly boring), was a serious mistake.

Now that I remember it, another awful film I've recently watched is The Witch, which was not only soporifically dull, but incredibly overrated.

For me, maybe the worst movie i have ever seen is Nymphomaniac, especially Vol.2. Vol.1 had some good scenes (but i did not like it as a movie) but Vol.2 is unwatchable. I have no words to say about it....Also, i did not like Deadpool at all. Sorry, but i find it ridiculous and disgusting.

For me, maybe the worst movie i have ever seen is Nymphomaniac, especially Vol.2. Vol.1 had some good scenes (but i did not like it as a movie) but Vol.2 is unwatchable. I have no words to say about it....Also, i did not like Deadpool at all. Sorry, but i find it ridiculous and disgusting.

I was a bit reluctant to reply as I'm sure the movie I'm about to mention many of you like or even cherish, but for me Mel Gibson's "Braveheart" would earn the spot. War films aren't my favorite genre. But it's been twenty years since I last viewed '95's Oscar winner--actually, I made it only about halfway. I think now I could appreciate the movie more since I have a different set of eyes--sitting through such an epic (just under three hours) certainly requires patience and attention. Even still, I thought his performance was stunning.

I could hardly pick one. I use to watch a lot of cheap movies (well, at least the first 5 minutes). Sometimes you find real little gems. But you're bound to see a lot of garbage in the process

Among movies that met some critical success, well...

The last Star Wars instalments sure stink to high heavens. About every stupid, wrong and cheap trick they could pull, they did. But you can find terabytes of rants on the subject, so I won't elaborate.

"A beautiful mind" angered me quite a bit. At first I fell for this hagiographic biopic, presenting the guy as an harmless nutty who came up with a humanist theory of cooperative behaviour, blah blah blah.
Then I learned a bit more about the said theories, which happened to be highly toxic, based on a paranoid view of what a human being is supposed to be, and whose unsung influence we still endure today. The humiliation of having been manipulated into liking this dangerous jerk, even for only a few months, just made me want to slap the director in the face.

I was a bit reluctant to reply as I'm sure the movie I'm about to mention many of you like or even cherish, but for me Mel Gibson's "Braveheart" would earn the spot.

If it can make you feel any better, I didn't like the movie either, as I highly dislike about 95% of war movies. In my opinion, the only war movies worth viewing are those who dispense with the epic bullshit and try to show what dirty business war actually is. And that includes Spielberg's attempts, which despites a pretense to realism still focus on gung-ho or "good guy" types that are in no way representative of what soldiers endured at the front, if I trust the many accounts from actual witnesses I watched, read or even heard.

"The thin red line" is probably my favourite. The two Clint Eastwood movies about Iwo Jima are pretty good too, Sam Peckinpah's "Cross of iron" maybe, despites some shortcomings, and this German movie about Stalingrad from the 90's. A couple of French movies too, like "L'instinct de l'ange", "La vie et rien d'autre", "Le caporal épinglé"... But I don't suppose many people saw them outside France.
Not exactly a movie, but I also watched recently an excellent TV series that follows a group of 4 or 5 Germans during WWII. Really good depiction of this horrible and absurd war, seen from the German perspective. Can't remember the title right now, but surely some other people must have seen it.

Better than Lord of the Rings? (thats what Lotr usually means) Because if that is what you meant nooooooo wayyyyyyyyyyy will any avengers movie top a classic amazing fantasy like Lord of the Rings. It's my favorite movie and I've seen a lot of movies. Especially fantasy very very few top Lord of the Rings. But im assuming thats what you mean if not sorry, disregard my comment.

.... I also watched recently an excellent TV series that follows a group of 4 or 5 Germans during WWII. Really good depiction of this horrible and absurd war, seen from the German perspective. Can't remember the title right now, but surely some other people must have seen it.

Are you talking about the Pasolini film? I have never watched it, but I cannot imagine that a film based on the Marquis de Sade's revolting book (in my opinion, it should be banned), would be pleasant in any way - especially if we take into account that it was created with the specific purpose of linking the nightmarish depravity reflected in the novel, to the fierce authoritarianism, the monstrous sense of entitlement displayed by the neo-feudal and industrialist upper classes created by Fascist corporatism, and the impunity that the high ranking members of all totalitarian and corrupt governments enjoy. As far as I have read, it was made with the clear purpose of denouncing the corrupting effects of absolute power and the nefarious impact that extreme social imbalances, alienating the poor and giving free reign to dishonesty, malice and political games, have in society at large. Obviously, presenting its subjects in the most negative light possible and being frighteningly brutal is par of the course in a film like that.

Still, should we say why films are awful? For example, there are films that might have subjects that we dislike or even feel repulsed about, but if we analyze them as part of a specific social and historical context, we'll see that they do have a purpose and a meaning, and are essentially well-made.

On the other hand, there are films that are just rubbish. For example, these Marvel/DC/action films about nothing but explosions of colour and fast-paced fight sequences that amount to little more than 2 hour-long video game experiences, stupid comedies about illogical nonsense that are boring and have juvenile humour (those impossibly idiotic Hangover films, the vast majority of romcoms, anything by Adam Sandler/Rob Schneider/Jim Carrey/Ben Stiller/Tyler Perry/Will Ferrell, idiotic European attempts at competing with Hollywood humour like the ridiculous Potiche, that stinking piece of rubbish Amélie or 95% of Roberto Benigni's films), and propaganda, US-is-the-best, gung ho films like those of Spielberg, Michael Bay and George Lucas.

Also, now that I remember, ANYTHING by that creep Zack Snyder. 300, Sucker Punch and Suicide Squad are disgusting, tacky, unnecessarily violent and an embarrassment to film making in general.

Gosh! That was a barrage of negativity... Shall we start a new thread about good films, just to counteract it all a little?

Yep, that's the one. I can't judge of the authenticity at 100%, but that looked pretty convincing to me. I especially liked the way they show this nice and smart kid turn into a desperate killer. The girl who becomes a nurse and has to deal with her guilt after betraying the Russian girl she befriended was an interesting character too.

-The Beast just looked so CGI, it was cringeworthy. He just looked too "cute" and human-like, not at ALL like the original 1991 Beast where he was ACTUALLY a beast. And he was so muscular, like wtf? He's not supposed to be hot, what is this furry shit?

-The actor who played Gaston (Luke Evans) was also horrible. My sister kept saying that he's just too attractive for this role, and that he never plays the bad guy, it doesn't suit him. I just think his acting was bad, and he was just too skinny for Gaston. An actor like Henry Cavill (who played the new Superman) could've fit better for this role, with his buff physique and chin cleft.

-That teleportation book scene. Like, what? How can this add anything to the story? Why would the enchantress give him that? Why would he even use it, can't he just go outside? How does it even work?! I still don't get it. I really don't. What, they wanted to show us more of Belle's sad backstory so they added this dumb teleportation book that had nothing to do with anything and very much resembles the "port-key" from Harry Potter? That scene was just the weirdest scene I've ever seen.

-It was cool and progressive that they made LeFou's character gay, it really was. But he was just too annoying! He really pissed me off, he was such a creep. Very unlikable. Not worth it even if he's gay.

-Emma Watson is lovely and beautiful, but she also made me cringe a few times. Especially in that scene where she went to the library during the song "Belle" and the librarian told her nicely: "Bon voyage!" and she was like: "bye". Bitch, you can be a tad more enthusiastic than that. No need to be such a downer even if you're a weirdo. It looked like she just improvised that line.

-English people playing French people. Why again? The only real French person is a candlestick. This is not an important detail but I still thought about it. Well, at least they're not Americans, lol.

-The song "Evermore" was basically the only thing I actually liked about this film. The song itself, not the scene it was in. When the Beast sings: "Even as she fades from view", he looks so… I don't know, ridiculous. Ugh, that face, that acting… just too forced. It was all bad, both the acting AND the CGI.

-Also I kept praying that Belle and the Beast won't kiss (while he's in beast form). I really got the feeling she wanted to bang him real bad. That's nasty. I don't support bestiality. Or Stockholm syndrome, lol. Eventually she just kissed him on the forehead, thank God.

-ALSO also, it didn't even look like the Beast was falling for Belle in return. At least for me. Only after he sang "Evermore" I got that he might feel the same for her. Still, he was just *meh* around her while she was all *wink wink* around him.

I know Disney tried to "fix" the original film's plot holes and mistakes, but that doesn't make this live action film any better.

All in all, this film didn't have the same charm as the original, and I didn't like it. Live actions are NEVER a good idea.

"beauty and the beast" is a typical Freudian fairy tale, similar to the princess and the toad, or this beautiful Tam Lin ballad. There is also a Russian variant whose name I can't remember right now.

However, you can trust Disney ignorant imbeciles to turn the most beautiful work of art or the most meaningful tale into a pile of stinking rubbish. I have long decided to spare myself this toxic garbage. The last time I made an exception, I had to endure the appalling sight of Luke Skywalker turned into a ranting decrepit loser, milking obscene alien cows and being humiliated by a clueless little minx while his sister levitated through the vacuum of space.
Never again!

Honestly I don't know...there are many films I simply refused to see, for example the Italian series 'Vacanze di Natale' or other similar comedies. I hate horror movies, and war movies, with some exceptions. And some story of science fiction - the sequels of 'Jurassic Park' ecc...

Metodius]Are you talking about the Pasolini film? I have never watched it, but I cannot imagine that a film based on the Marquis de Sade's revolting book (in my opinion, it should be banned), would be pleasant in any way - especially if we take into account that it was created with the specific purpose of linking the nightmarish depravity reflected in the novel, to the fierce authoritarianism, the monstrous sense of entitlement displayed by the neo-feudal and industrialist upper classes created by Fascist corporati

[quote=Metodius

wrote:

Are you talking about the Pasolini film? I have never watched it, but I cannot imagine that a film based on the Marquis de Sade's revolting book (in my opinion, it should be banned), would be pleasant in any way - especially if we take into account that it was created with the specific purpose of linking the nightmarish depravity reflected in the novel, to the fierce authoritarianism, the monstrous sense of entitlement displayed by the neo-feudal and industrialist upper classes created by Fascist corporatism, and the impunity that the high ranking members of all totalitarian and corrupt governments enjoy. As far as I have read, it was made with the clear purpose of denouncing the corrupting effects of absolute power and the nefarious impact that extreme social imbalances, alienating the poor and giving free reign to dishonesty, malice and political games, have in society at large. Obviously, presenting its subjects in the most negative light possible and being frighteningly brutal is par of the course in a film like that.

Still, should we say why films are awful? For example, there are films that might have subjects that we dislike or even feel repulsed about, but if we analyze them as part of a specific social and historical context, we'll see that they do have a purpose and a meaning, and are essentially well-made.

On the other hand, there are films that are just rubbish. For example, these Marvel/DC/action films about nothing but explosions of colour and fast-paced fight sequences that amount to little more than 2 hour-long video game experiences, stupid comedies about illogical nonsense that are boring and have juvenile humour (those impossibly idiotic Hangover films, the vast majority of romcoms, anything by Adam Sandler/Rob Schneider/Jim Carrey/Ben Stiller/Tyler Perry/Will Ferrell, idiotic European attempts at competing with Hollywood humour like the ridiculous Potiche, that stinking piece of rubbish Amélie or 95% of Roberto Benigni's films), and propaganda, US-is-the-best, gung ho films like those of Spielberg, Michael Bay and George Lucas.

Also, now that I remember, ANYTHING by that creep Zack Snyder. 300, Sucker Punch and Suicide Squad are disgusting, tacky, unnecessarily violent and an embarrassment to film making in general.

Gosh! That was a barrage of negativity... Shall we start a new thread about good films, just to counteract it all a little?

Yes that's what I mean.
A Communist Italian director who makes De Sad's book a film, and this is considered by the "experts" as a masterpiece.
When on the pretext of anti-fascism he projects and attempts to justify his special preferences with tough images of anal sex between men and corruptions, which do not shock but cause laughter because the trick has limits as well.
And this hatred against women is state the obvious...
The pathetic and miserable Pier could not do otherwise.
Are you a sloppy friend?
OK.
But don't try to teach us liberalism by boat a shit platter.
Disgrace!
The psychological world of Pazolini in political packaging.
This is my opinion and nothing else.
It was no coincidence that he murdered a few months after the film was screened. We all know what fascism means and don't need such films to teach us.

Sorry but, what are you going on about? I was just commenting on the film and the motivations that Pasolini had for making it. I have not tried to promote any political ideas or wanted to convince anyone of anything.

Anyway, I am glad that you have replied to my post. Thank you for that.

Have a good evening and sorry if I have inconvenienced you in any way.

I'm not sure the work of Pasolini can be dismissed so easily. It has nothing to do with "liberal propaganda", in my opinion. For one thing he was an atypical communist. Labelling him as a "liberal" makes little sense to me. By today's standards he would be considered a loony, plain and simple.

The fact that the current dominant ideology labels any opposition as fascist or lefty "populists" and the spectrum of acceptable political debate has shrunk to this "reactionary vs liberals" puppet show should be taken into account before passing judgement on the schools of thought that existed up until the 70's.

Sorry Francesc, but I didn't refer to what you said, just told my opinion about the film and the director.
For me, it's one of the worst movies I've ever seen and that's what I tried to justify.
No misunderstanding my friend!

Well I just reacted to your analysis. In my opinion, judging the movie by today's standards is a bit too restrictive.

There are motivations behind it that have practically vanished since, and the level of provocation that can be found in countless movies of the era can be considered obscene today, as soon as sex is involved.

On the other hand, the level of violence in all forms that is considered a base ingredient of entertainment today would have been deemed obscene and pointless 40 years ago.

At the time, using sex as means to illustrate political ideas was considered acceptable, though Pasolini went to the extreme in this particular movie.

Also, there was no Internet at the time, not even VCRs. You had to show your ID to prove you were over 18 and buy a theatre ticket to see that kind of movies. They were meant for an adult audience, and had little to do with entertainment.